Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2014 March 13

= March 13 =

Bubbles
Hi. While doing various projects using water I have noticed that when pouring water from a hose that some times a small droplet of water (about 2 or 3 mm diameter) rolls across the surface of the pool of water and disappears. The other is when filling a fish tank, I observed a bubble (same size as the first droplet described) which didn't rush to the surface like an air filled bubble, but stayed circulating in the current of the flow from the hose for a few seconds before disappearing. My question is, is this a bubble of water, under water, the same as it is to have a bubble of air in the air? and the former bubble, a bubble of water on water in the air? Cheers. Gary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garycurious (talk • contribs) 02:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * On the water droplet, I've observed something similar, that a drop falling into a tub sometimes will roll around for a bit before it collapses. I assume this has to do with it's momentum (spin in particular) being more than the adhesion force that wants the water droplet to stick to the tub.  Your water droplet case would be similar, but there the momentum would be greater than the cohesion force of water wanting to stick to water.  There could also be a similarity with rock skipping, where the momentum of the rock causes it to bounce off the water.


 * As for the second case, which I assume to be an air bubble, was the water stream pointed downward ? If so, the tendency of the bubble to want to float to the top is fought by the water stream pushing it down.  If there's less downward force in the center of the stream, then a stable spot may exist there for the air bubble.    StuRat (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Tree identification
What are these trees (in San Diego, California, USA?)
 * 1) Tree 1:
 * 2) Tree 2:
 * 69.108.48.145 (talk) 07:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm on shaky ground when it comes to anything that doesn't grow in England, but the very long needles, large cone and grey bark suggest that Coulter pine is a likely suspect. Have a look at Image Gallery: Pinus coulteri, Coulter Pine. Alansplodge (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I can't rule that out, but perhaps they might be Torrey pines, a species that is a "local icon" in San Diego, as our article puts it. Looie496 (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Good call, although the bark on a Torrey pine should be "red-brown to purple-red" and I would have said that bark on the first image above is grey (or gray) although it seems to get red-brown further up. Looking at the second image, the needles seem to me to be in bundles of two or three. The Coulter pine has needles "3 per fascicle, slightly spreading, not drooping, mostly ascending in a brush" while the Torrey pine has "mostly 5 per fascicle". Perhaps if User:69.108 would be so kind as to go back and see if the needles are in threes or fives, we'll have a definite answer. Alansplodge (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm beginning to come around to the Torrey pine hypothesis. I found the San Diego County Tree Map which only has 5 Coulter pines but 1,104 Torrey pines. Alansplodge (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Both trees have needles in bundles of three. 69.105.138.121 (talk) 08:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC) (= 69.108.48.145 above)
 * Coulter pines then. Could you find them on the County Tree Map? Alansplodge (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, #1 =, #2 = . The DB has no information beyond saying that they're pines. 69.108.48.25 (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC) (= same person as above)

Main Battle Tank
When I saw how the ammo is arranged in Leopard 2, Leclerc and Black Panther tanks , I wondered if is it safe to put this large amount of ammo in the front of the tank - even if the frontal armor is the thickest - is there a blowout panel for this ammo ? if not, is there big difference between western tanks and Russian tanks in terms of safety or in terms of exposure of ammo to cook off ? Tank Designer (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * See Tank-net AFV Forum - Leopard 2 Ammo Storage Question. Alansplodge (talk) 09:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

So I can say there is not a completely safe tank in the whole world - in terms of ammo storage - except the M1Abrams, but the Abrams is not practical due to its high maintenance costs and its high fuel consumption Tank Designer (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tank Designer (talk • contribs) 10:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're right that there isn't a completely safe tank - but some are safer than others. The same forum has Ammo stowage, a summary which lists most modern tanks and their arrangements. Note that forums are not regarded as a reliable source for the purpose of Wikipedia articles. Our article on the Challenger 2 states that it is "one of the most heavily armoured and best protected tanks in the world" and compares favourably with the M1 in terms of fuel consumption reliability and IR heat signature, but then I'm probably a bit biased. Alansplodge (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that Challenger 2 is the best protected tank in the world, and also its gun has the longest range in the world Tank Designer (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC) I can say that Challenger 2 is the best tank in the world if it was a little bit faster Tank Designer (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I′m proud to say that our army in Jordan have British tanks in its arsenal 94.249.28.39 (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tank Designer (talk • contribs) 12:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the speed issue put the European buyers off the Challenger 2, plus the fact that many of them were already operating the Leopard 1 and that the bigger production run made the Leopard 2 a lot cheaper. Alansplodge (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there any example of any of these tanks suffering such an ammunition cook-off? If not, then perhaps they are all good enough. Rmhermen (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * According to our article on the Leopard 2, a Danish driver was killed in one by an IED in Afghanistan. A British Challenger 2 was destroyed during the 2003 Invasion of Iraq in a "friendly fire" incident, when a shell from another Challenger hit the commander's hatch showering "hot fragments into the turret, killing two crew members. The strike caused a fire that eventually led to an explosion of the stowed ammunition, destroying the tank. It remains the only Challenger 2 to be completely destroyed on operations". Alansplodge (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

St Lawrence Lime exact species
What was the exact species of that lime tree? T. cordata? Tilia × europaea? Thanks in advance.--Carnby (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think there is a good chance that these people will know or they will know a local botanist who might know. Richard Avery (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * A Google search yielded nothing, rather complicated by the existence of something called "St Lawrence lime stone". Anyway, the Common Lime, Tilia x europea is (as the name suggests) far and away the most common planted lime in England. A recognition feature is that the trunk is "burred and densely sprout-infested at the base", according to the estimable Alan Mitchell in his Field Guide to the Trees of Britain and Northern Europe (p. 359), a book of biblical authority in my opinion. He says that the hybrid is "of natural origin" and "possibly native". I can see lots of burrs on the photos of the tree; I suspect that the groundsman would have kept the sprouts at bay. That's the best I can do, hopefully, the sages of the Kent Field Club will produce a definitive answer. Alansplodge (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This webpage claims that it's a Small-Leafed Lime (Tilia cordata), however, I'm dubious. Mr Mitchell says that "the dense yellowish-green crowns of old [small-leafed lime] trees can be identified at a distance". I can't see yellow in any of the pictures. Alansplodge (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

No scientific body of national or international standing
In the "Dissenting" section of the article on the scientific opinion on climate change, the following statement appears quite exaggerated, and difficult to verify or validate:
 * As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no scientific body of national or international standing rejected the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.

The references are quite old...seven years on. Is there some way we can update and/or verify this claim?

Thanks --Graham Proud (talk) 11:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have tagged it for updating. Suggest you make this request on the article talk page.--Shantavira|feed me 13:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note that by "scientific bodies " what is meant are organizations like e.g. the American Physical Society. These are bodies that publish the leading peer reviewed journals that most scientist in the field publish there results in. In theory, anyone could start some obscure organization and call that a "scientific body", but that's not relevant here. Count Iblis (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed the tag. If you know better then fix the text or put something on the talk page. Just because something is a few years old doesn't mean it has changed since. Dmcq (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Large scale disasters
In many large scale disasters such as the 2011 Tohoku earthquake in Japan, the response seems to mainly involve military and aid agencies (both international and national). So what do the national emergency services do in these cases? 194.66.246.93 (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The premise of your question is entirely false - normal civil agencies like police and fire services are fully employed in these cases. Indeed, the definition of "national emergency" is pretty much that set of events where the normal civil response function is overwhelmed and must call out for assistance from other regions and services. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * To expand on Finlay McWalter's answer, the purpose of "national emergency services", like FEMA in the U.S. or other similar government agencies, is NOT to perform the functions that everyday emergency-management services like police, fire, ambulance, rescue, military, etc. perform. It's not like there's a declared national emergency, and the local services stop functioning to let FEMA (or similar) agency do everything.  Instead, what those services are supposed to do is to coordinate the response from various agencies when the local agencies are overwhelmed, and extra support needs to be brought in.  For example, (and I'm using a U.S. example because I'm only familiar with it) let's say that Los Angeles is hit by a particularly bad earthquake.  Very quickly, local emergency response units are going to become overwhelmed.  There aren't enough ambulances to ferry all the injured to hospitals, not enough firefighters to put out blazes, not enough police to keep people calm and prevent looting and opportunity crime, not enough local charities to feed the displaced.  Now, very quickly, hundreds and thousands of other people will start going to LA to help out.  Doctors, paramedics, charity groups, etc, all show up saying "How can we help?"  The deal is, NONE of these people knows where they are needs, knows anything about local geography, they're just useless extra bodies taking up space unless someone tells them "You go here and help do this!" etc.  The "national emergency service" organizations like FEMA are supposed to provide that coordination and organization.  They assess what is needed, and tell people where to go provide for those needs.  That's what they do.  They don't actually have the personnel on hand to provide the services themselves (that'd be a waste, keeping thousands of people waiting on payroll doing nothing until that rare emergency occurs).  Instead, they have people on payroll who are experts in organizing others, so when the doctors and firefighters and regular folks just wanting to pitch in and help start showing up from all over, someone knows where to send them and help them be effective.  -- Jayron  32  14:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The U.S. has the additional wrinkle that under the Posse Comitatus rule, the federal military is not supposed to become involved in any local policing. Rmhermen (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note that the National Guard is supposed to be (original intent of the Constitution) under control of individual state's Governors. But... According to Article I, Section 8; Clause 15, the United States Congress is given the power to pass laws for "calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."  Nevertheless, Governors often turn to their National Guard units for help during large-scale local emergencies. ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Also note that there are several problems with relying on local responders for major emergencies:


 * 1) They may have their own families to worry about. For example, if their own kids are missing, they may put a higher priority on searching for them than on showing up for work.


 * 2) The roads may be blocked so they can't get to work.


 * 3) Local communications technologies may be down, so they may not be reachable.


 * 4) They may have vested interests which prevent them from responding. For example, during desegregation of the schools in the Southern US, local authorities often refused to stop rioters from attacking.  Of course, a refusal to act is sometimes a good thing.    During the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 the local soldiers seemed reluctant to kill the protesters, so the Chinese government brought in soldiers from far away to kill them. StuRat (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Structures with different values of g to 9.81 in load calculations
Assuming a structure is on earth, is g always 9.81, unless dynamic loads change this as may be the case with vehicles as a result of g forces generated from acceleration? Clover345 (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There is a small variation in the value of g, due to many factors:


 * 1) Your altitude or distance below the ground or sea.


 * 2) The density of the material underneath and above you.


 * 3) (Apparent) centrifugal force at the equator reduces g somewhat there relative to the poles.


 * Also note that, due to buoyancy, objects underwater behave, in some ways, as if they are under a lesser g force. If the material is the same density as water, it's something like being in 0 g, while less dense materials behave as if under a negative g force.  This effect can also happen underground, if below the water table, or even above the water table, where the density of the surrounding soil provides a buoyancy effect (buried tires can "float" to the surface).  And lighter-than-air craft also have an apparent negative g force in air.  (Technically any object in air behaves as if in a slight reduced g force, but the effect is negligible for most objects, due to their much greater density than air.) StuRat (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * According to tide, the force of gravity varies by 1.1 × 10−7 g for the moon and 0.52 × 10−7 g for the sun. Wnt (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please get your exponents right. I assume you mean 10−7 g... - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 06:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * True, but the effects of the sun and moon are negligible compared with the 0.7% variation in the earth's gravity over the surface, even at sea level (with a further variation with altitude, as mentioned by StuRat above). The main contributions to the variation in "g" are the shape of the earth (an oblate spheroid), and the centrifugal effect that is greatest at the equator.  "g" at sea level varies from about 9.76 to about 9.83.  Forces due to other accelerations are sometimes called "g forces", by analogy with the (almost constant) "g" of gravity.    D b f i r s   07:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Many structural design calculations imply that g = 10 m.s-1. This has the advantage that any object with a mass of X kilograms has a weight of X decanewtons (or 10X newtons.) The result will be conservative because the achieved factor of safety will be 2% higher than if g is assumed to be 9.8 Dolphin  ( t ) 06:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Groundnut limit
Can I consume 200 grams groundnut (partially roasted) everyday for gaining 50 grams of protein from it ? Will it affect the body adversely ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.235.54.187 (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The general health recommendation is to consume a variety of foods, not just a few. While I'm not aware of any toxin in groundnuts you need to avoid, even a slight nut allergy to something like peanuts could become serious if you consume those quantities.  Also, if those nuts are salted, you may get a sodium overdose.  Then there's concern that you may not get other nutrients that you would get if you consumed other sources of protein, such as vitamin B-12 and dietary iron. Finally, you are likely to get sick of them and fail to maintain such a diet. StuRat (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

We're not supposed to give medical advice here, and without seeing your entire diet and medical history we can't speculate on the risks and benefits of eating peanuts. We can, of course, note that peanuts are sold by the pound and that many of us personally enjoy them by the pound, though some may say we have been affected adversely, at least as far as body weight is concerned. :) Wnt (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Nutritional advice is not medical advice, if it was, any author of a nutritional book would be arrested for practicing medicine without a license. StuRat (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No, we are not allowed to give nutritional advice. That requires professional licensing in all fifty states, especially Florida as either a nutritionist or a dietician.  We can give links to relevant information, but the disclaimer prevents us from offering what is in fact professional advice. μηδείς (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, not all fifty states. There are a handful of states that don't regulate people identifying themselves as "nutritionists" at all, as well as about 15 states where one can identify and work as a "dietitian" (but not a "registered dietitian") without a formal license.  Even in places where the terms are regulated it is often acceptable to give generalized nutrition information without a license as long as you are not involved in treating any specific individual.  Dragons flight (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What's relevant in wikipedia's case is its disclaimer that we do not provide professional advice and the laws of Florida, which do require professional licensing of both nutritionists and dieticians. μηδείς (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That would only apply to paid nutritionists and dieticians there. Anyone can offer unpaid advice without a license, even in Florida. StuRat (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Wrong. As I already stated, writing and selling a nutritional advice book does not require any licensing. StuRat (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * So, Stu, when you publish a book that addresses IP 119's inquiry "Can I consume 200 grams groundnut (partially roasted) everyday for gaining 50 grams of protein from it ? Will it affect the body adversely?" Yo can publish it and then we can link to it as a source. But we can't answer him directly with our own advice here. μηδείς (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, my point is that we don't know (whether for ideological or personal medical reasons) a person has a need for more protein or is already receiving more than they need, and the same is true of calories, to a degree even salt (though it's implausible anyone in an industrialized country really needs the amount peanuts are salted with due to a scarcity of it in their other dietary items). Wnt (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Presuming "groundnuts" means peanuts, they are pretty nutritious. The main concern would be that 200 grams of peanuts contain almost 100 grams of fat, which already exceeds the recommended daily intake even if everything else you eat is fat-free. Looie496 (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note that peanuts have fairly large amounts of unsaturated fat relative to saturated fat. Even the health risks of the latter, according to our article, remain controversial. Wnt (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * As far as the 50 g of protein a day, I believe the recommendation by the FDA was 55 g per day, before they stopped making any recommendation. Also note that you can get get too much protein, which puts a strain on the kidneys. (This has inspired my following Q.) StuRat (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that I don't have any allergy to peanuts! I also don't eat them salted and in fact combine them with jaggery and eat.I am basically a fitness freak who loves burning fat so the 100 grams fat will be too much for me ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.235.54.187 (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Jaggery is mostly sugar, and consuming large amounts of sugar is unwise, especially all at once, as it can cause a sugar spike and then sugar crash. (During the sugar spike the body produces insulin, which converts the sugar into fat on you body, causing the blood sugar to plummet.) Exercising after eating that will certainly help, though, as will eating the nuts in small quantities spread throughout the day.   Also avoid sugary drinks, but get plenty of water (I drink unsweetened herbal tea, myself).  And brush your teeth frequently to avoid cavities from all that sugar.  StuRat (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * A little common sense is in order here. Peanuts & jaggery sounds like a yummy treat.  As with most good things: some is good; too much is bad.  Note that happy people tend to live longer.  Happiness is good for you!   ~Cheers, ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Nutritional web site ?
Is there a web site which lists the current scientific consensus of the minimum and maximum recommendations each person should consume daily for each nutrient ? Some will only have a minimum, and they might need to ask your gender, age and weight to make the recommendation (and if pregnant). FDA recommendations seem woefully out of date and absent entirely for many key nutrients. StuRat (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Dietary Reference Intake and links therefrom?--Shantavira|feed me 19:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * NutritionData is an excellent website I use to get data on specific foods, and it has other tools like the one you are seeking. It's run by self magazine, but it has given pretty reliable and quite detailed information when I use it.


 * Cool, do you have a link directly to that page ? StuRat (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's the "daily needs" page which is one of the tools. From any page at their website go to the grey drag down menu at the top and find the tool or whatver is appropriate.  I usually put a food in the search field at the top right, and use the resulting "filling" rating and the carbs/fats/proteins pyramid to find something filling but not too high in carbs and fat.  The page I linked to was garbanzo beans, which with free-range carrots makes an extremely satisfying snack.  I have a very fresh varied diet, so I don't worry som much about nutrients as avoiding sugar.  In any case, the site has just about anything you can want to know.  If you search any specific food it also gives you choice of portions in various measures, and the relative nutritious worth for various vitamins and minerals. Really a great product. μηδείς (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but no maximums are listed. Also, some common nutrients, like sodium, fats, and cholesterol, are missing. StuRat (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Soldering Iron Tip Tinner
What exactly is this tip tinner made of? 

What are the benefits of all the different varieties of tip tinners out there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.17.117.40 (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * According to the product information, PDF: "Tin in suspension with Ammonium Phosphate".
 * According to product details:, the "benefits" for this product:
 * For regeneration of oxidized tips
 * Works fast and easily with low temperature
 * Environmentally safe, no halides, lead, rosin, or residue
 * Regular use will prolong life time of the tip
 * —71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! 8.17.117.40 (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

P.s.
According to our Ammonium phosphate article: " Because of its instability, it is an elusive and of no commercial value."

However, Diammonium phosphate: "...is used as a Flux for soldering tin, copper, zinc and brass."  — 71.20.250.51 (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Is this different from "tip refresher"? --Seans Potato Business 02:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

under water radiation
does seismic activities or active under water volcanoes emit strong enough radiation to disturb planes flying over it  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.55.149.107 (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No. Orders of magnitude too little. Looie496 (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * And what form of radiation do you mean ? Radon gas liberated by tremors or quakes could damage human health, but you'd need to be exposed to it over a long time period. StuRat (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Distances between moons, planets, and stars
Is the commonly given measure of distances between them from surface to surface or from centre to centre? (e.g. Moon-Earth 384 399 km) Th4n3r (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would assume between the centres of mass of the two objects. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 23:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

"centre to centre" is correct. This is discussed in our article on apsides: "the apsis technically refers to the distance measured between the centers of mass of the central and orbiting body". RomanSpa (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)